Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

PS3 Owner Gets $100 Rebate for Losing Linux

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 59 comments

A European PS3 owner has claimed a partial refund because of Sony's decision to axe Linux support.

When we reported that Sony would be ditching OtherOS support, killing off the ability to run Linux on your console, a lot of you suggested that this couldn't be legal. What about people who purchased the PS3 with this feature in mind? Wouldn't taking it away mean the console no longer performed as advertised?

Well, that's what one European user said when he complained to Amazon. PlayStation University reports that NeoGAF forum moderator "iapetus" received over $100 in credit from Amazon for his original purchase of his PlayStation 3. Iapetus filed a complaint with the etailer on the grounds that removing Linux support violates European Union consumer laws. Amended in 2002 to affect all EU member states, the law states that all goods "must be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase."

The response iapetus got from Amazon is pasted below:

"We are writing to confirm that we have processed your refund in the amount of £84.00 for your Order 666-5327564-4432412.

This refund is for the following item(s):

Item: Sony PlayStation 3 Console (60GB Premium Version)
Quantity: 1
ASIN: B0007SV734
Reason for refund: Account adjustment

The following is the breakdown of your refund for this item:

Item Refund: £71.49
Item Tax Refund: £12.51"

PlayStation University reports that because Sony made it known at the time of purchase that you would be able to install an ‘Other OS’ the owner was able to raise this issue with Amazon. Amazon's policy was to offer a partial refund whether the consumer had used that feature or not.

It's not yet clear if Amazon has awarded other PS3 owners similar rebates, or even if anyone else has tried to get a refund.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 25 Hide
    babybeluga , April 9, 2010 3:43 PM
    e-rockMan they pay a lot of taxes over there.


    The healthcare
  • 19 Hide
    e-rock , April 9, 2010 3:35 PM
    Man they pay a lot of taxes over there.
  • 19 Hide
    ailgatrat , April 9, 2010 3:28 PM
    I wonder if this would apply in the USA? Is Sony reimbursing Amazon for these refunds?
Other Comments
    Display all 59 comments.
  • 18 Hide
    crazymech , April 9, 2010 3:27 PM
    Anyone got a link to that law data? :p 
  • 19 Hide
    ailgatrat , April 9, 2010 3:28 PM
    I wonder if this would apply in the USA? Is Sony reimbursing Amazon for these refunds?
  • 8 Hide
    babybeluga , April 9, 2010 3:31 PM
    I am in love with the sad penguin! I want to take it home to meet my parents!

    I don't think Amazon should have done this (if it's true). This will only open the floodgates (I'll be one of the people flooding in - $600 when the PS3 came out...What was I thinking!).
  • 18 Hide
    JMcEntegart , April 9, 2010 3:34 PM
    crazymechAnyone got a link to that law data?


    The EU law cited in the article can be found here. :)  About halfway down the page.
  • 19 Hide
    e-rock , April 9, 2010 3:35 PM
    Man they pay a lot of taxes over there.
  • 9 Hide
    mman74 , April 9, 2010 3:36 PM
    Case for a class action perhaps? At the very least Sony should offer some PSN credits. I have a fat boy PS3 and I am very very disappointed with Sony on this.
  • 25 Hide
    babybeluga , April 9, 2010 3:43 PM
    e-rockMan they pay a lot of taxes over there.


    The healthcare
  • 2 Hide
    t-vizz the 2nd , April 9, 2010 3:50 PM
    If Amazon is offering partial refunds I can assume they are getting ready to sue? I mean I don't see why a retailer would do that, people aren't mad at Amazon, they are mad at Sony. No one I think was expecting them to step in. I assume they are doing this so they can sue and look like the peoples hero.
  • 15 Hide
    dman3k , April 9, 2010 3:52 PM
    I wish that the US has more consumer production laws. Most US laws protect the big corporations.
  • -8 Hide
    hakesterman , April 9, 2010 3:54 PM
    Amazon decided to make him happy again not Sony, and i can assure you Sony isn't refunding or reimbursing anyone for this. So Good Luck on that one. If you want your Linux go download the new Patch that will alllow you to keep your Linux. Personally i think Linux is comnplete junk but that's just my two cents.


  • 4 Hide
    mlopinto2k1 , April 9, 2010 4:01 PM
    hakestermanAmazon decided to make him happy again not Sony, and i can assure you Sony isn't refunding or reimbursing anyone for this. So Good Luck on that one. If you want your Linux go download the new Patch that will alllow you to keep your Linux. Personally i think Linux is comnplete junk but that's just my two cents.
    I personally think Linux, from an outsiders point of view is an excellent piece of software. Yes, when you start to get involved with the nitty gritty of it.. Linux definitely needs some help from professional software developers to sort some things out but as an efficient OS, it sure does the trick especially because it is free.
  • 12 Hide
    counselmancl , April 9, 2010 4:06 PM
    We can't let Sony violate the terms of sale unanswered. Lawsuit please!
  • 14 Hide
    HalJordan , April 9, 2010 4:10 PM
    mlopinto2k1Tom's, you are going to start a snowball effect by posting this article. Now everyone and their grandmother is gonna go to Amazon looking for rebates. You realize this, don't you? Would that have any repercussion on you?


    If everyone and their grandmother, under the EU's consumer production laws which the most recent PS3 update violated, then they should get their rebate.

    Repercussions for Tom's? As in should Tom's feel bad if Amazon get's flood with rebate requests? What? Huh? No, don't be stupid.
  • 3 Hide
    noodlegts , April 9, 2010 4:12 PM
    A class action lawsuit would definitely win something.

    It's like if you bought a game, then a new patch for that game (required to play online) added DRM that required you be connected to the internet at all time to play. You could argue that you bought the game to play on trips and that this patch reduced the value to you greatly.
  • 1 Hide
    Onus , April 9, 2010 4:16 PM
    I suspect Sony will reimburse Amazon for these, and quite happily. It probably went something like this:
    Amazon: Hey Sony, your product isn't going to do what you claimed it would do, that this buyer says made him choose to buy it. That's illegal, but we think he'll be happy with a [partial] refund. You have two choices: 1) Do nothing. We'll sue you for the full amount of every PS3 we've ever sold in the EU, in anticipation of more irate customers, plus damages for our loss of goodwill; you know we'll win, because of this law; or 2) you reimburse us for any refunds, as they happen, and only IF they happen.
    Sony: We'll take door #2!

    Sony only has to pay [partial] refunds for that fraction of PS3 buyers that wanted to put Linux on their PS3, and cared enough to moan about not being able to.
  • 6 Hide
    tsnorquist , April 9, 2010 4:22 PM
    Man, I bought my PS3 at Circuit City - I guess I'm S.O.L....
  • 2 Hide
    darraghcoy , April 9, 2010 4:32 PM
    How was the figure of $100 arrived at? Was it just plucked out of the air? How do you quantify the loss of such a feature?
  • 4 Hide
    restatement3dofted , April 9, 2010 4:41 PM
    In common law jurisdictions in the United States, there is an article in the Uniform Commercial Code (which has been adopted by most states) that imposes what is commonly known as the "implied warranty," or "warranty of fitness." It is, effectively, the U.S. equivalent of the UK law noted in the article. In operation, it requires that goods sold by merchants (which has specific legal meaning) must be fit for the particular purpose that enticed the buyer to purchase them. These warranties can (and, presumably, often are) be disclaimed by the seller, and so whether or not you could recover for something like this would depend on a variety of factors, including the particular laws of any person's state of residence/purchase.

    Please keep in mind that this post is not intended as, nor should it be construed as, legal advice of any kind, and under no circumstances can it be relied on as such.
Display more comments